AGW Theory - Discussion

Dismissal, nice.

The core of the political left is. And you apparently didn't read because this has been known about since the 70's and 80's. The US monitored Soviet political subversion, and eventually several KGB defectors out briefed this to the CIA.

From the mouths of those who were executing this strategy themselves. Can't get much more concrete then that. But hey if it doesn't agree with your political religion then it must be wrong right?

To help you out a bit, I'll only quote the important parts.


That is textbook progressive ideology. Today, right now, people like Bernie Sanders are pushing this ideology. The greater part of this Ideology was planted in the USA during the Cold War when the "Great Workers Revolution" failed to manifest itself and was used as a political weapon to undermine industrial capability.

Here is one of the interview, though it covers a wide area of topics. Yuri does discuss how he would instructed to subvert governments as a KGB agent. Most of those subversion were not "steal nuclear secrets" James Bond movie stuff, but instead just typical bullshiting important people into becoming followers of your particular ideology and using them as agents to undermine their own governments. This is kind of outside the scope of this discussion, I'm only providing this to demonstrate how much Soviet influence was present in the Liberal teachings and ideology, and that influence was put there with the express purpose of undermining the industrial economy that gives American such a strong Military edge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnRKlUyA5Eo

The Republicans are fascists too, just more of a home grown variety.

Don't forget that after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Communist expansion many former NGO members of Marxist philosophy and Communism joined up with various green movements (and gained controlling positions) as a way to continue spreading their message under the guise of a more popular movement.

That actually brings up a good point. Just became a war ends doesn't mean the weapons all get put back on their shelves. This includes political and economic weapons as well. Many of those anti-industrial beliefs and influences would of come to an end when the great "Communist Revolution" happened in the USA. The Soviets routinely rounded up their previous fanatical supporters and executed them in order to ensure they didn't turn on their former masters. They never actually planned on keeping industry in a dysfunctional state, they just wanted it there long enough to incite a revolution that they could take advantage of. Of course that revolution never happened and with the collapse of their state, the previous designers and controllers of those political weapons stopped what they were doing. So you have a thought virus laying around and spreading without anyone to keep it in check. Makes for a nice weapon if someone's willing to pick it up and put it to use.

And people think war is only conducted with bullets, bombs and airplanes.

Because they aren't. History teaches us that humans are weak minded, simple and easy to manipulate. Marketing and advertising firms actively practice manipulation on a mass scale. The same techniques that are so effective in marketing a handbag to consumers are also effective marketing an ideology to those same consumers. Such attempts are known as thought virus's and form integral parts of psychological operations and propaganda campaigns. With this weapon you can commit great atrocities all while being applauded by the masses. Really don't wanna bring Godwin's Law into this though.

http://www.alternet.org/story/10025/memes%3A_the_weird_world_of_thought_viruses

This is to answer your original question


Which wasn't really a question but an implied statement that your political mortal enemies, the conservatives, are unscientific and unintelligent. Basically it was you insulting your enemy while simultaneously confirming your own bias.

In order for a person to make such a personal statement they need to first identify with one of the participants. Seeing as you don't seem to be the type to insult yourself or degrade your own ego, it's a pretty good bet that you subconsciously identify with the "progressive / liberal / democrat / non-republican / non-conservative / non-christian / ect.." team. And since your not a leader of said political goliath nor are you a power broker, it follows your one of the foot soldiers. To be a foot solder means you must either be getting paid as a mercenary, or your infected with the thought virus's that lead one to become a "useful idiots" previously mentioned in that video. My money's on the latter of those two possibilities.

Idk why we're talking of things completely unrelated to the topic, but anyway...You always have this way of talking that inserts a general, or unrelated argument into your own and make it seem like it belongs to strengthen your position.
Don't get me wrong, I admire your oratory capabilities, I wish I had them too, but that doesn't make all your statements right nonetheless.

That quote specifically is flawed as it has the implication that everyone, unless they're active in a political movement, is merely "sold" on someone else's ideologies. This isn't true, not always. I for one never even read a thing about politics until I started forming on my own my ideas about it, it was a personal philosophical growth that only then led me to decide to check who in my country seemed to be closest to what I thought and then vote for them. I didn't find a Lenin's video and thought "oh my he's so charismatic, I'm sold!"(I'm not even communist, it's an example), nor did I look at who people around me voted and followed them(my mother is conservative); it was an internal exploration of the self that led me to a certain ideaology.
I voted left but if Renzi says something I don't agree with I don't keep clapping my hands like an idiot cause "yaaay lefties!!", I don't care about clinging to a label, but I will keep pursuing my own thoughts and try to find someone who is as like-minded as possible inside the political spectrum(and good luck to me with that...)

Everything I say is relevant to the context it's spoken in. Do not skip forward or attempt to take something out of context.


That statement is extremely accurate.

Unless you are the one forming the political movement or cult, you are therefor, by definition, are following someone else's ideas. You may even think you agree with them, but ultimately someone put them in your head. This process starts from early childhood with stories and games that "teach" ideas and continues throughout adolescence into adulthood. The primary vector for these idea's isn't rational discussion or demonstration, those are the actually the worst, but emotional manipulation. First you create a strong emotion, then you attach an idea to that emotion and then reinforce it. This isn't new, it's been going on for thousands of years in the form of oral tradition and parables.

So the idea that you "rationally" came up with your beliefs is complete ***. Someone else put them there via emotional subjective manipulation, while having you think it was your idea the whole time.

Explaining how to stop mental manipulation, kinda verbose and difficult to talk about.

I don't know in what environment you grew up in, but that is most definetely not the case, otherwise people would always be likeminded in the same community.
I was raised in a region where a woman is expected to marry asap and spawn children, and only maybe find a job. To be a fanatic christian, to only follow traditions, to follow the saying "wives and cows from your towns", and so forth.

Yet I do not abide to any of that, and it wasn't for rebelliousness that I parted from it, but because growing up I felt it not right.
I didn't become atheist cause someone talked to me about it, every person I've met growing up loved J-Christ.
My mom never once talked about politics or socio-economic problems at home. And the first time I met a teacher who did was in second year of highschool..and he was fascist..

You see, people don't only shape their morals and ideals based on positive feedback. No one inspired me, I experienced life and formed my ideologies based on these experiences, like everyone else does.
I don't see why a starter of a movement would be different than me or anyone else. The only difference is that they try to spread their creed, while I just live it in small bubble. Your post implies that those people are beyond all that you accuse everyone else of being a victim of...which is just wrong.

That's exactly the difference. There's a lot of people in this world that blindly follow the suggestions of others, charisma, imo, is a lot more potent and powerful than any weapon ever made by man. The more charismatic a person is, the stronger their ideas will become to those who are, for a lack of a better term, weak. Not weak physically, but mentally and emotionally.

Your outlook on life isn't just your own product of thoughts and feelings, it's a combination of information that you've obtained over the course of your life that has evolved your way of thinking, feeling, and living. You're from a predominantly Christian environment that, by many standards, would be strict and by your own admission, look upon women as property. Something must have occurred to cause you to want to be and do something other than live in that environment. One doesn't simply live their life one way and then on a whim decide to live another way, it's either an evolution or manipulation. I'd bet there was a defining moment, maybe even several, that shaped your views. That's what I get from Saevel's comment for what it's worth.

And I did not dismiss that. But just cause I don't wanna start my own movement, it doesn't inherently make me part of the cattle. It just means that I believe stress would literally kill me if I was in politics, I wouldn't be able to handle it.

As for the other part, I said it too that experiences shape people. But that doesn't necessarily come from a positive feedback of someone parading their ideology and me abscribing to it.

Obama's contribution to global warming:

Staring down glaciers.

Well, it could be worse....he could actually try to help global warming....

Was waiting for Saevel's usual blah-blah-blah liberals word dumps to come derail everything. But then it was already a troll topic so no surprise there.

Just because it doesn't 100% fully agree with your standpoint doesn't mean that it's a troll topic.

But if this bothers you so much, why bother to post? Or are you angry that nobody is paying any attention to your thread anymore?

Personally I disagree with the need of this second topic too, but alas we moved here.

Duplicates always bother me on forums.

Here are links to the studies referenced in the portion of the IPCC that Ravael questioned:

• Constraints on Climate Sensitivity from Radiation Patterns in Climate Models

• Application of regularized optimal fingerprinting to attribution. Part I: method, properties and idealized analysis

• Application of regularized optimal fingerprinting to attribution. Part II: application to global near-surface temperature

• Attribution of observed historical near-surface temperature variations to anthropogenic and natural causes using CMIP5 simulations

• Constraining the Ratio of Global Warming to Cumulative CO2 Emissions Using CMIP5 Simulations

• Multimodel Assessment of Regional Surface Temperature Trends: CMIP3 and CMIP5 Twentieth-Century Simulations

Now, nobody ever had any studies to refute the other links I shared, so I'm starting to wonder if I've been blocked or something. Understand that I'm willing to listen to counterarguments (though I tend to skim over Saevel's large conspiracy theory mutliposts), but I'm not seeing anything that directly addresses the studies I've been sharing.

Nobody is refuting your links because they are all abstracts of studies that cost quite a bit of money (to some) just to read.

While they may be good models to use, it still doesn't prove anything without knowing how the raw data was used in those models and how they compare to actual data.

Also, for somebody who is "willing" to listen to counterarguments, you do admit that you ignore, well, counterarguments....kindof counterproductive, don't you think?

But given the climate of the argument (pun intended), there is no point in arguing with people who are automatically going to label you a "denier" just for asking for data.

He only said he ignores Saevel's conspiracy theories, not counterarguments to the actual topic.

Not all of Saevel's points are "conspiracy theories"

And he still hasn't countered the counterpoint. Just post a bunch of abstracts.

That wasn't implied. He was specific about what part he ignores...

For somebody who is "open" for debate, he is certainly silent to replying to somebody's counter, and said he ignores that person's "conspiracy theories"

So, either he ignores everything that person said, citing "conspiracy" or he is not as open for debate as he proclaims he is.

Also, why hasn't he countered Ravael's position? All he did was (again) posted a bunch of abstracts that pretty much tell you nothing except specific models that you have to believe in.

I'm sorry that I don't automatically believe in something because somebody who proclaims to be an expert in the subject told me to believe in him.

The case against the fact that I'm only listing abstracts is a fair point, though there haven't been any studies or data from the other side either. I can access some of the full studies if I use my campus' library (after a day or two waiting process), but I'm not really going to post whole articles on here.

Also I'm posting from work so I can't answer everything fully until I get a free moment, but I do intend to address that stuff.

You've become so inflammatory lately, KN..there was a time civil debate could be had with you without every one of your posts being provocative..

Cue on snippets about people being called deniers. The only one who was called that was, unsurprisingly, Nausi, cause he at some point stopped even acknowledging the climate is changing at all for the sake of opposing the topic.

But everything has to be us vs them...

As for proclaimed experts I could say the same about those who are trying to bring this down. I most sincerely question the ability to even understand what most are reading about this(if they are reading it at all).

So in the abstract it states:

Can you clarify that first sentence?

It sounds like, the total amount of CO2 (ppm) is independent of any warming. So instead the amount of emissions (not the cumulative amount of CO2 in ppm) directly affects [absolute, not change in] temperature.

I would be contented with just the data used by those studies.

Nearly all studies I have seen have shown where the data comes from, but still does not allow anyone to verify said data, which is odd to me. Which is why I continuously ask for said data.

Most contention against these papers are voicing my concern, that the data could be manipulated or altered to fit the findings of said studies. It doesn't help the case that nearly all of these studies are funded by pretty much the same group of people whose purpose is to profit from said doomsday studies (green companies, EPA, and so on).

I'm sorry if I seem skeptical, but I don't take things for granted.

Wait, you mean that you never automatically called me a denier just for questioning the sources?

Or are you calling me a denier because I pointed out an observation about this whole scenario of "trust me on what I say" to be the same as every religion out there?

You have to buy the study to find that out.

In 30 years when Europe is a Caliphate I bet they will look back and wish they focused on real problems.